What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Unknown submunition

US-Subs

US-Subs

ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
Ordnance approved
Premium Member
In my spare time(?) I work on various ordnance identification handbooks, which, with the exception of one, are more for myself than anyone else. This is an item from my 15 year (so far) project on submunitions. The model is unknown, but it appears to be of US manufacture from certain construction features. The construction and shaped charge cone date it as late 50's-early 60s, it is the same cone as used in the 3.5-inch rocket. Anyone have any info? It's my piece, but I have no data.
 

Attachments

  • D-SUB-US-A-040.jpg
    D-SUB-US-A-040.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 226
  • D-SUB-US-A-041.jpg
    D-SUB-US-A-041.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 254
Nobody? I've seen at least a couple of these on opposite ends of the US, someone should have seen it - ?
 
They have one at Pendleton EOD in CA, I got mine from the east coast -
 
US-S,

What is the function, if any, of the 'funnel' forward of the cone?

Thanks

TimG.
 
Submunition Southall Bomb

US-Subs said:
[...]This is an item from my 15 year (so far) project on submunitions. [...]QUOTE]

Jeff,

One for your guide from Winston Churchill's Toyshop (MD1). They did a number of submunitions including K Bomb, Puffball and this one, 'Southall'.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TimG said:
US-S,

What is the function, if any, of the 'funnel' forward of the cone?

Thanks

TimG.
Click to expand...


Offhand I'd guess that it's there to stiffen the front of the munition so that upon impact it maintains a somewhat optimal distance for jet formation.
 
Eodtek said:
Offhand I'd guess that it's there to stiffen the front of the munition so that upon impact it maintains a somewhat optimal distance for jet formation.
Click to expand...

Actually,it's not in a way.When the round hit's the target,the copper cone at the front vaporises into plasma which blasts thru armour.Once inside the plasma becomes white hot 'bullets' & destroys everything inside.The funnel is to allow the charge to be focused.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm
 
This is a slight misunderstanding.

To put it in simple terms, it is a matter of pressure. Think of kids on a warm winter day, stamping their feet into the slush. The high point of pressure where the feet impact causes the slush to move out of the way, exagerating the footprint. A shaped charge does much the same. It hits with such force that the steel behaves more like a liquid, and the high pressure pushes it aside. Yes, it is an explosion, there is heat, but it is the velocity and pressure that does the work. The heat and hot fragments of metal may cause secondary damage inside, igniting fuel and ammunition, but nothing is "vaporized", expecially the liner. Look at Spotter's recent post on the 3.5-inch for examples of the "slug" which typically follows along at the rear of the jet, often times blocking the penetration hole. This is the remnants of the liner, moving more slowly than the jet.

Penetrators work on a similar principle, but with slightly different effects due to velocity and mass differences.
 
US-Subs said:
This is a slight misunderstanding.

To put it in simple terms, it is a matter of pressure. Think of kids on a warm winter day, stamping their feet into the slush. The high point of pressure where the feet impact causes the slush to move out of the way, exagerating the footprint. A shaped charge does much the same. It hits with such force that the steel behaves more like a liquid, and the high pressure pushes it aside. Yes, it is an explosion, there is heat, but it is the velocity and pressure that does the work. The heat and hot fragments of metal may cause secondary damage inside, igniting fuel and ammunition, but nothing is "vaporized", expecially the liner. Look at Spotter's recent post on the 3.5-inch for examples of the "slug" which typically follows along at the rear of the jet, often times blocking the penetration hole. This is the remnants of the liner, moving more slowly than the jet.

Penetrators work on a similar principle, but with slightly different effects due to velocity and mass differences.
Click to expand...

Maybe 'Vaporised' was a bad choice of words,I know how shaped charges ect work,me having been an RAF Armourer since 1994 as well as on EOD duties.I was trying to simplify it for the masses.
 
US-Subs, I always liked to use the analogy of toothpaste out of a tube, but the slush idea works too. 25%-30% of the inside of the liner goes into the making of the "jet" and as you described, the plasma thus formed and the its' pressure pushes the targeted material aside. Another analogy would be to heat up a pin and then poke it in wax. You'll observe that the wax initially flows away from the hot pin.

As to the funnel, I would tend to agree that it is a wave shaper, though it doesn't seem to be of the optimum 1 1/2 to 4 times the dia of the cone.

The fuzing appears to be piezo-electric. How close is it to the LAW fuze which it vaguely resembles from the small picture? Thanks, Bruce.
 
bacarnal said:
US-Subs, I always liked to use the analogy of toothpaste out of a tube, but the slush idea works too. 25%-30% of the inside of the liner goes into the making of the "jet" and as you described, the plasma thus formed and the its' pressure pushes the targeted material aside. Another analogy would be to heat up a pin and then poke it in wax. You'll observe that the wax initially flows away from the hot pin.

As to the funnel, I would tend to agree that it is a wave shaper, though it doesn't seem to be of the optimum 1 1/2 to 4 times the dia of the cone.

The fuzing appears to be piezo-electric. How close is it to the LAW fuze which it vaguely resembles from the small picture? Thanks, Bruce.
Click to expand...


The "funnel" or the stand-off, is indeed shorter than optimal. I suspect that this was done as a matter of sacrifice, losing some efficiency but gaining space in a dispenser load and allowing for more submunitions to be dropped. This was always a fight for deisners, trying to get the necessary stand-off while getting as many pieces in as possible. Eventually everyone moved to "nesting" type designs, as in the M42 types, the Rockeyes and the PTABs.

Back to the original question, I also suspect that part of the stand-off's heavy construction was to make the munition nose heavy, to get a better orientation of impact for the shaped charge.

The fuzing in this compares to a LAW like a Model T to a Ferrari, basically very similar, but still a long way apart. Of course the M72 LAW compares with today's latest munitions in the same way.....
 
Experimental to the Rockeye bomblet

I workedf onm this item several decades ago, it is a HEAT bomblet that uses a piezo point initiating element, it was the for runner to the Rockeye bomblet that is currently in use. Most all I knew about were dropped at White Sands and a few tested at APG, Md. As I recall they didn't do so well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top